A letter was sent to the Senate by two key players in the insurance industry, America's Health ins. plans and Blue Cross/ Blue Shield. They stated that if the government offered a public option that it would "dismantle" private insurers which prompted USA Today reporter David Jackson to ask, "Why are they wrong? And secondly, this public plan, is this non-negotiable? Would you sign a health-care bill without it?" Obama responded with a brief fillibuster on why we need health-care reform, gave some statistics, and told a story of  a Green Bay mother of two that had a double mastectomy but the cancer had moved to her bones. While she had insurance and a husband who worked she still owed more than 50 thousand in medical bills that were still mounting. Then Obama finished with "the status quo wasn't acceptable."  Towards the end of the non answer he said that a public plan is "a important tool to discipline insurance companies," and if you're a small business that can't afford what is out there, "As one of those options, for us to be able to say, here's a public option that's not profit-driven, that can keep down admisitration costs and that provides you good, quality care for a reasonable price-as one of the options for you to choose, I think that makes sense." That final and revealing part of the answer ensured the follow-up and logical question by Jackson. "Won't that drive insurers out of business." 

He responded, "Why would it drive private health insurance out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality healthcare; if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government-which they say can't run anything-suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical."

 "Now, the--I think that there's going to be some healthy debates in congress about the shape that this takes. I think there can be some legitimate concerns on the part of private insurers that if any public plan is simply being subsidized by taxpayers endlessly that over time they can't compete with government just printing money, so there are going to be some, I think legitimate debates to be had about how this plan takes shape."

"But just conceptually, the notion that all these insurance companies who say they're giving consumers the best possible deal, if they can't compete against a public plan as one option with consumers making the decision what's the best deal, that defies logic."

Amazing, he gives us two of the main reasons why private business can't compete against government then tells us we're are being illogical for thinking it.

He said it, the govenment's plan isn't "profit-driven" and they can just, "endlessly print money". If a private company just breaks even and loses no money, then that company is out of business. Business owners have to pay for their own personal expenses such as food, gas and electric, car payments, and mortgages. What about the extras like college tuition for the kids, home improvements, vacations, and hobbies which are why most people go into business for themselves in the first place. The government is not hamstrung by the whole profit thing. A great example of that is the Senate-run dining room, cafeteria, and coffee shops. From 1993-2008 these Senate-run businesses lost 20 million dollars until this year finally deciding to turn it over to private operators. Across the street the House's restaurants and food courts that are privately run have racked up around 1.2 million dollars in profit in the same time frame. Why were these restaurants allowed to go on year after year losing money? Because the government can print money, tax more, and move money around shifting money from one program to another program. Why did they lose money in the first place? Because the businesses in question weren't profit driven remember what the President said, the government's plan won't be "profit driven". Goods and services offered by profit driven companies will always be better in quality, price, and efficiency. If the quality isn't there the custumers will go elsewhere. Businesses competing for your dollar are constantly looking to improve, wether it be speed, accessability, or the actual quality of product they are offering. When people started to really complain about how long it would take to get something done at the DMV what was the governments solution? Remove the clocks. Foget about looking inward and trying to correct inefficiencies in the system the government thought they could trick the people, not realizing most people wear watches and if they didn't could just as easily ask another person in line. Obama and his people are trying to trick you. They are saying that this is not a govenment takeover, people who are happy with their insuance plans need not worry you will be able to keep your insurance. How's that  possible when you have the government who can lower their price against private insurers and not worry about losing a dime. Secondly, and not much talked about, the government creates the rules that private insuance has to play by. It would be like playing a football game and the other teams head coach was the Commisioner and the assistant head coach was the referee. These existing rules or "red tape" created by the government are why health care costs have been rising in the first place. Much like the housing bust the government creates the problem, blames someone else, then comes in and says we're the only ones who can fix it.  Government can create the laws and regulations that favor their plan. So Obama is saying over and over you can keep your private insurance. Obama had a conference call with some left-wing bloggers and was asked about a provision in H.R. 3200 which seemed to say otherwise.

Blogger: "Investors Business Daily, they're saying that H.R. 3200 will make individual private medical insurance illegal. Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?

Obama: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you're talking about.

I have read the provision the blogger is referring to plus two others and it does seem to say that there can be no more private insurance plans written after the public option is made available, telling private insurance whats the minimum services a plan can offer, and what they can charge. What's scary is Obama didn't know what provision the blogger was talking about but yet he is infatic about telling us we will be able to keep out private plans that polling shows 85% of us are happy with.

 

As it stands now we have a jackpot civil justice system and doctors are forced to carry unbelievably high mal-practice insurance. Will the government have to carry malpratice insurance? I suppose you can sue the government for malpractice but what are the odds going to be for someone who gets free healthcare from the government. Will the private citizen even file when the realize the government has unlimited resources to defend itself  from someone taking a handout.  Obama and the Democrats have not put in one bill, tort reform. Tort reform would if framed right, put a stop to base-less lawsuits and put a cap on jackpot payouts. This would lower the cost of malpractice insurance and the cost of what doctors and hospitals charge health insurance companies. But trial lawyers are one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party, so don't hold your breath. 

 

So is it logical to think private health insurers can compete with the government who has no profit to worry about, who can set prices as low as they wish and run deficits year after year and print their own money. A government who doesn't have to worry about malpractice lawsuits, and a government who creates the rules of  the game they're playing in, then referee's it. That's Obama logic.